l\epubltt of tbe tlbiltppines

;upreme :ourt
;ffianila
FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

G.R. No. 186463

Present:
SERENO, CJ.,
Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA,JR., and
REYES, JJ.

- versus -

WILLIAM MANGUNE y DEL

ROSARIO,
Accused-Appellant.
)(-

Promulgated:

NOV 1 4 2012

-- - -- -- ---- -- --- - --- ----- ---

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

Accused-appellant William Mangune y del Rosario, also known as

Earl William Mangune or Earl Mangune (Mangune), is now before Us on
review after the Court of Appeals, in its August 29, 2008 Decision 1 in CAG.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02596, affirmed, in its entirety, the August 31, 2006
2

Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch

207, in Criminal Case No. 03-317. The RTC found Mangune guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph l(a) as
qualified by his relationship to the minor victim under Article 266-B,
Rollo, pp. 2-7; penned by Associate Justice Sixto C. Marella, Jr. with Associate Justices Amelita
G. Tolentino and Japilr B. Dimaampao, concurring.
CA rolla, pp. 31-35.

Decision

G.R. No. 186463

paragraph 2, no. 1 of the Revised Penal Code.3

On May 12, 2003, an Information4 was filed before the RTC, charging
Mangune with the crime of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, in
relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 2, no. 1, of the Revised Penal Code.
The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
That on or about the 7th day of May, 2003, in the City of
Muntinlupa, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, being a man and the biological father of
one [AAA], 5 a 17-year[-]old girl, and by means of force, threat or
intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had
carnal knowledge of said child, [AAA], against her will and consent.6

Mangune pleaded not guilty to the charge upon his arraignment on

October 17, 2003.7

On February 11, 2004, the parties met for their pre-trial conference
and agreed on the following stipulations:
1. That the accused is the biological father of the private complainant;
and
2. That at the time of the commission of the alleged crime of rape, the
private complainant was then a minor, who was 17 years of age.8

Faced with the lone issue of whether Mangune was guilty of the crime
as charged in the Information, the RTC proceeded with the trial on the
merits.

3
4
5

6
7
8

As amended by Republic Act No. 8353.

Records, pp. 1-2.
Under Republic Act No. 9262 also known as Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children
Act of 2004 and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim and those of her immediate
family members are withheld and fictitious initials are instead used to protect the victims privacy.
Records, p. 1.
Id. at 69.
Id. at 76.

Decision

G.R. No. 186463

The prosecution first presented AAA, who, in her Sworn Statements9

and testimony, accused her father, Mangune, whom she identified in open
court, of raping her on May 7, 2003, in his house in Muntinlupa. AAA
alleged that Mangune started raping her when she was just a little girl. She
said that since she was so young when the first rape occurred, her first clear
memory of her father raping her was in 1994, when she was in Grade III.
AAA narrated how her father called her then, asking for a massage.
However, she continued, her father apparently did not really want a massage
because he took off her shorts and tried to insert his penis into her vagina.
AAA claimed that since his penis could not fit into her vagina, Mangune
inserted his finger instead, with a threat that if she told her mother of what
had just transpired, he would kill them both. AAA said that throughout the
years, her father continued raping her and eventually succeeded in inserting
his penis into her vagina. On May 7, 2003, AAA finally told her mother
about the rapes, the last of which occurred that same morning. AAA averred
that at around 5:30 in the morning, while she was sleeping inside her room,
she felt her shorts being removed and something heavy go on top of her.
Realizing it was her father, AAA testified that she tried to fight back but was
overpowered, at which point, Mangune was able to insert his penis into her
vagina. AAA stated that her shouts and pleas were met with slaps on the
face and a scary look from her father, prompting her to simply keep quiet.
When her mother and aunt fetched her at around noon later that day, she told
them about the rapes, and her mother immediately brought her to Camp
Crame to be medically examined.10

Upon cross-examination, AAA testified that her parents lived in

separate houses because her mothers office was far from her fathers house.
She also claimed that she knew of no untoward incident between her parents
9
10

Id. at 9-15.
TSN, April 14, 2004, pp. 7-12.

Decision

G.R. No. 186463

prior to May 7, 2003, and described her father as good and caring.11
Police Chief Inspector Pierre Paul Figueroa Carpio (Carpio), a Doctor
of Medicine and a Philippine National Police (PNP) Medico-Legal Officer,12
testified that he had examined AAA on May 7, 2003, and identified the
initial Medico-Legal Report he subsequently issued, 13 wherein he had
indicated the following:
FINDINGS:
Hymen: Deep healed lacerations at 4, 6, 7 and 9 oclock positions.
Physical Injuries. No external signs of application of any form of
trauma.
CONCLUSION: --------------------------x------------------------------Subject is non-virgin state physically.
There are no external signs
of application of any form of trauma.14

Explaining the finding that there were [n]o external signs of

application of any form of trauma, Carpio said it meant that aside from the
genital organ, there were no injuries noted in the other parts of the body.15
Upon cross-examination, Carpio stated that his findings were consistent with
AAAs allegations in the sense that the findings of healed deep lacerations in
the hymen were compatible with the allegation of several incidents of sexual
abuse.16

Mangune, who testified in his own defense, denied raping his

daughter, AAA, and said that the charge caught him by surprise. He stated
that he had six children, all of whom he loved and treated equally. He said
11
12
13
14
15
16

TSN, November 17, 2004, pp. 10-11.

TSN, July 13, 2005, pp. 6-7.
Id. at 11.
Records, p. 18.
TSN, July 13, 2005, p. 11.
Id. at 16.

Decision

G.R. No. 186463

that before May 7, 2003, his relationship with his wife, AAAs mother, was
fine, with the occasional bickering between spouses. When asked where he
was at around 5:30 in the morning on May 7, 2003, Mangune claimed that
he was sleeping in his house with his daughter AAA, his other children
being then in their mothers house. Mangune then averred that at around
1:00 in the afternoon, AAA, with his permission, left for the mall with her
friends and came back at midnight. At around 11:00 in the evening, his wife
called out to him to get out of the house, at which point he was arrested and
brought to Camp Crame, where he learned of the complaint filed against
him. He said that he did not know of any reason why AAA would accuse
him of such a crime.17

On August 31, 2006, the RTC handed down a guilty verdict against
Mangune and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua without the benefit of
parole, in this manner:

WHEREFORE, accused William Mangune y del Rosario @

Earl William Mangune or @ Earl Mangune, is found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a)
in relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 2, no. 1 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended by R.A. 8353, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua without benefit of parole, in accordance with R.A.
9346, An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
Philippines, and is ordered to pay the private complainant [AAA], his
biological daughter, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral
damages, and P25,000.00 as exemplary damages.18

In its Decision, the RTC stated that the prosecution was able to prove
the following:

(1) [T]hat the accused had carnal knowledge of the offended party, his
biological daughter, (2) that the crime was done through intimidation,
threat and force, (3) that the private complainant was a minor at the
17
18

TSN, December 7, 2005, pp. 4-10.

CA rollo, p. 35.

Decision

G.R. No. 186463

time of the commission of the crime, and (4) that the accused is her
biological father.19

The RTC found AAAs testimony sufficient to be able to stand on its

ground and convict Mangune.

Moreover, the RTC said, Mangunes

barefaced denial x x x [could] not prevail over the positive, spontaneous,

straightforward and detailed testimony of [AAA]. The RTC explained that
it gave AAAs testimony full faith and credence as there was no showing
that she was actuated by improper motive against her father.20
Mangune appealed 21 to the Court of Appeals, arguing that his guilt
had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution witnesses
testimonies were materially unreliable; thus, should not have been given full
weight and credence.22
On August 29, 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTCs
Decision in its entirety.
The Court of Appeals said that Mangune cited only one reason to
support the errors he assigned against the RTC: that AAA sustained no
external signs of any form of trauma despite her declaration that Mangune
allegedly slapped her many times on the face.23

Addressing such reasoning, the Court of Appeals stated that

Mangunes claim was untenable, and quoting this Court in People v. Napud,
Jr.,24 said:

19
20
21
22
23
24

Id. at 34-35.
Id. at 34.
Id. at 36.
Id. at 52.
Rollo, pp. 5-6.
418 Phil. 268, 279-280 (2001).

Decision

G.R. No. 186463

[T]he absence of external injuries does not negate rape. This is because in
rape, the important consideration is not the presence of injuries on the
victims body, but penile contact with the female genitalia without the
womans consent. (Citation omitted.)

Undaunted, Mangune is now before this Court, 25 with the same

assignment of errors he presented before the Court of Appeals, viz:

I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL
WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION
WITNESSES MATERIALLY UNRELIABLE TESTIMONY.
II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE
GUILT OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT MANGUNE HAS BEEN
PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.26

Ruling and Discussion

Mangune was charged with Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1, in

relation to Article 266-B, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 8353. Said provisions read:

Article 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. - Rape is

committed:
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under
any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise
unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority;
25
26

Rollo, pp. 8-10.

CA rollo, p. 52.

Decision

G.R. No. 186463

d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is

demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned
above be present.

ART. 266-B. Penalties. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next

preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
xxxx
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is
committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying
circumstances:
1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the
offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.

Mangune, from the very beginning of the case, admitted that AAA is
his biological daughter and was still a minor on May 7, 2003, the time the
last rape allegedly occurred.

Thus, in essence, Mangunes bone of

contention in this case, is the credibility of AAAs testimony vis--vis the

findings contained in the Initial Medico-Legal Report.

Mangune asseverates that the lower courts should have acquitted him
based on reasonable doubt as AAAs testimony is not worthy of belief for
having been fabricated. He supports such assertion by making much of the
fact that AAA did not sustain any external physical marks, as shown by the
medico-legal findings, despite her testimony that he slapped her many times
on the face. This, Mangune insists, makes AAAs testimony incredible.
In People v. Paringit,27 this Court has declared that [n]ot all blows
leave marks.28 Thus, the fact that the medico-legal officer found no signs of
external injuries on AAA, especially on her face, which supposedly had been

27
28

G.R. No. 83947, September 13, 1990, 189 SCRA 478.

Id. at 487.

Decision

G.R. No. 186463

slapped several times, does not invalidate her statement that Mangune
slapped her to silence her.
In People v. Rabanes, 29 the accused similarly assailed the victims
testimony by saying that if her claim that she was slapped several times were
true, then there would have been visible marks or injuries on her face, which
would have been reported in the medical certificate. This Court, in response
to therein accuseds argument, held:

While the victim testified that she was slapped many times by the
accused-appellant, which caused her to become unconscious, the doctor
found no trace or injury on her face. The absence of any injury or
hematoma on the face of the victim does not negate her claim that she
was slapped. Dr. Lao also testified that if the force was not strong enough
or if the patients skin is normal, as compared to other patients where even
a slight rubbing of their skin would cause a blood mark, no hematoma will
result. But, even granting that there were no extra-genital injuries on the
victim, it had been held that the absence of external signs or physical
injuries does not negate the commission of the crime of rape. The
same rule applies even though no medical certificate is presented in
evidence. Proof of injuries is not necessary because this is not an
essential element of the crime.30 (Citations omitted, emphases added.)

This Court, in a long line of cases,31 has ruled that the absence of
external signs of physical injuries does not negate rape.32 The doctrine is
thus well-entrenched in our jurisprudence, and the Court of Appeals
correctly applied it.33

Mangunes attempt to discredit AAAs testimony that he raped her on

May 7, 2003, must ultimately fail as he has shown no solid grounds to
29
30
31

32
33

G.R. No. 93709, May 8, 1992, 208 SCRA 768.

Id. at 776-777.
People v. Casipit, G.R. No. 88229, May 31, 1994, 232 SCRA 638, 642; People v. Barcelona, G.R.
No. 82589, October 31, 1990, 191 SCRA 100, 106; People v. Abonada, 251 Phil. 482, 494 (1989);
People v. Alfonso, 237 Phil. 467, 479 (1987); People v. Juntilla, 373 Phil. 351, 365 (1999);
People v. Davatos, G.R. No. 93322, February 4, 1994, 229 SCRA 647, 652; People v.
Managaytay, 364 Phil. 800, 807 (1999).
People v. Arnan, G.R. No. 72608, June 30, 1993, 224 SCRA 37, 43.
Rollo, p. 6.

Decision

10

G.R. No. 186463

impeach it. Explaining how testimonial evidence is considered and weighed

in court, this Court has said:
Credible witness and credible testimony are the two essential
elements for the determination of the weight of a particular testimony.
This principle could not ring any truer where the prosecution relies mainly
on the testimony of the complainant, corroborated by the medico-legal
findings of a physician. Be that as it may, the accused may be convicted
on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim,
provided that her testimony is clear, convincing and otherwise consistent
with human nature.34 (Citation omitted.)

The RTC, which had the opportunity to hear the testimonies live, and
observe the witnesses in person, found not only AAA credible, but her
testimony as well. It even declared that AAAs testimony alone can justify
the conviction of Mangune.

The foregoing were subscribed to by the Court of Appeals as well

when it affirmed the RTCs Decision in its entirety.35

This Court finds no valid reason to depart from the time-honored

doctrine that where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, and in this
case their testimonies as well, the findings of the trial court are not to be
disturbed unless the consideration of certain facts of substance and value,
which have been plainly overlooked, might affect the result of the case.36
Expounding on the matter, this Court, in People v. Dion,37 said:
Due to its intimate nature, rape is usually a crime bereft of
witnesses, and, more often than not, the victim is left to testify for herself.
Thus, in the resolution of rape cases, the victims credibility becomes the
primordial consideration. It is settled that when the victims testimony is
straightforward, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the
34
35
36
37

People v. Sorongon, 445 Phil. 273, 278 (2003).

Rollo, p. 7.
People v. Lardizabal, G.R. No. 89113, November 29, 1991, 204 SCRA 320, 329.
G.R. No. 181035, July 4, 2011, 653 SCRA 117, 133.

Decision

11

G.R. No. 186463

normal course of things, unflawed by any material or significant

inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility, and the accused may be
convicted solely on the basis thereof. Inconsistencies in the victims
testimony do not impair her credibility, especially if the inconsistencies
refer to trivial matters that do not alter the essential fact of the commission
of rape. The trial courts assessment of the witnesses credibility is given
great weight and is even conclusive and binding. x x x. (Citations
omitted.)

Quoting People v. Sapigao, Jr., 38 this Court, in the same case,

explained the rationale for the above practice:
It is well settled that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses
and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because
of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note
their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grilling examination. These
are important in determining the truthfulness of witnesses and in
unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. For,
indeed, the emphasis, gesture, and inflection of the voice are potent aids in
ascertaining the witness credibility, and the trial court has the opportunity
and can take advantage of these aids. These cannot be incorporated in the
record so that all that the appellate court can see are the cold words of the
witness contained in transcript of testimonies with the risk that some of
what the witness actually said may have been lost in the process of
transcribing. As correctly stated by an American court, There is an
inherent impossibility of determining with any degree of accuracy what
credit is justly due to a witness from merely reading the words spoken by
him, even if there were no doubt as to the identity of the words. However
artful a corrupt witness may be, there is generally, under the pressure of a
skillful cross-examination, something in his manner or bearing on the
stand that betrays him, and thereby destroys the force of his testimony.
Many of the real tests of truth by which the artful witness is exposed in the
very nature of things cannot be transcribed upon the record, and hence
they can never be considered by the appellate court. (Citations omitted.)

Furthermore, Mangune could not impute any ill motive on AAA or his
wife that would explain why he was charged with such a heinous crime. We
have ruled that [a]bsent evidence showing any reason or motive for a
witness to falsely testify against the accused, the logical conclusion is that no

38

G.R. No. 178485, September 4, 2009, 598 SCRA 416, 425-426, cited in People v. Dion, id. at
133-134.

Decision

12

G.R. No. 186463

such improper motive exists and the testimony should be accorded full faith
and credit." 39

It is also worthy to note that Mangune proffered no other defense than

that of denial. In People v. Espinosa,

40

we held that:

It is well-settled that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing

evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law. Denial
cannot prevail over the positive, candid and categorical testimony of the
complainant, and as between the positive declaration of the complainant
and the negative statement of the appellant, the former deserves more
credence. (Citations omitted.)

While the Court affinns the award of civil indemnity in the amount
ofP75,000.00; and moral damages in the amount ofP75,000.00; the Court
increases the award of exemplary damages from P25,000.00 to P30,000.00
in line with prevailingjurisprudence.

41

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of

Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02596 is hereby AFFIRMED with

MODIFICATION. William Mangune y del Rosario, also known as Earl

William Mangune or Earl Mangune, is sentenced to reclusion perpetua, in
lieu of death, without the possibility of parole. He is ORDERED to pay the
victim, AAA, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages,
and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, all with interest at the rate of 6% per

annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

~~u~

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice
39
~0
~I

People v. Bulan, 498 Phil. 586, 599 (2005).

476 Phil. 42, 62 (2004).
People v. Miranda, G .R. No. 176634, April 5, 20 I 0, 6 I 7 SCRA 298, 3 I 6-3 I 7.

Decision

13

G.R. No. 186463

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice
Chairperson

BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that

the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.

~
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice